Hi all, new to the forum here and hoping to be an active participant :)
First off a question that i'm sure has been answered somewhere in the past, or perhaps not... Has anyone here figured out how Perendev's PMM (supposedly) works? Apparantly they are going global and full-scale with it soon.... for the low low price of 8500 Pounds (just over $17,000 Canadian) - ouch.
Here's the link if any of you want to check his site: www.perendev-power.com - there are videos here (not sceptic proof though)
Another link of note along the same lines: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Perendev:Jeffery_Lecroix
- Here Mr.Lecroix begins to explain the "golden ratio" that can somehow keep PMM's out of cog...I've got a few more ideas on this that I'll try to post soon.
I firmly belive that PMM's will be the only way for future generations to enjoy anything close to prosperity, and i believe that it will be the intrepid weekend warriors, the tinkerers and the out-of-box thinkers that will eventually solve this riddle. What we can all hope for in the end is an open-source design that costs under $5000 to build or buy. Let's get one in every single family home across the globe - free power for all.
P.S. If any of you have not yet read the following, please do so: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
This website was all the motivation that i needed to start persuing this topic.
Sincerely - nightwynd.
The Perendev motor is not being produced because it infringes on three other patons out there from the US.
All three patons out there are still valid.
There are two WO patons that are being infringes also.
I personally know of three patons pending that predates the Parendev by a few years.
This would be Remsource out of Owasso, Oklahoma. Email/// remsource1@hotmail.com
Troy Reed has been working with Remsource for many years to do so.
They are getting ready to release the motor that
The Perendev motor could not be because of many legal reasons of infringement
Quote from: remsource on October 27, 2008, 07:30:50 PM
...getting ready to release the motor...
Sadly, many OU devices are still forever 'getting ready.'
Think it will be on the shelves in time for this holiday season?
Hi!
You forgot to mention that the motor after you pay is not yours it is the company's. You just are paying for the right to use it.
Jesus
Quote from: nightwynd on May 07, 2006, 09:32:27 AM
Hi all, new to the forum here and hoping to be an active participant :)
First off a question that i'm sure has been answered somewhere in the past, or perhaps not... Has anyone here figured out how Perendev's PMM (supposedly) works? Apparantly they are going global and full-scale with it soon.... for the low low price of 8500 Pounds (just over $17,000 Canadian) - ouch.
Here's the link if any of you want to check his site: www.perendev-power.com - there are videos here (not sceptic proof though)
Another link of note along the same lines: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Perendev:Jeffery_Lecroix
- Here Mr.Lecroix begins to explain the "golden ratio" that can somehow keep PMM's out of cog...I've got a few more ideas on this that I'll try to post soon.
I firmly belive that PMM's will be the only way for future generations to enjoy anything close to prosperity, and i believe that it will be the intrepid weekend warriors, the tinkerers and the out-of-box thinkers that will eventually solve this riddle. What we can all hope for in the end is an open-source design that costs under $5000 to build or buy. Let's get one in every single family home across the globe - free power for all.
P.S. If any of you have not yet read the following, please do so: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
This website was all the motivation that i needed to start persuing this topic.
Sincerely - nightwynd.
Perendev's motor is explained fully in the current edition of the Cambridge dictionary, under the entry for "gullible."
...isn't it that they are not able to scale it to lead out significant power in Kilowatt-range. I know somebody, which has seen a running motor from Perendev not on a show but even in an personal audience in the office of perendev inventor. yes they are self-running. but these spectacular announced motors stop when they have to do real usefull work. the magnetic-effect is not controlled properly under load. so more investigation has to be done. maybe i am wrong.
an other possibility is, that they are got too anxious about illegal copying the device, which crashes buisness before getting back huge investments. or they supressed...
Permanent magnets can't do work! How hard is it to understand this? Any patent on the subject will forever just be a patent, and not a working device. Any attemt to make OU out of magnets ends up in lack of money ("Please donate us a lot of money so you can save the world from pollution - and make us very rich"), or the project was destroied by a little boy and it cannot be rebuilt - strange how parts and ideas dissappears with the destruction of a "working" model.
Well, that said. Never mind my opinion, but the only thing OU here is the HOPE.
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on October 28, 2008, 06:46:56 AM
Permanent magnets can't do work! How hard is it to understand this? Any patent on the subject will forever just be a patent, and not a working device. Any attemt to make OU out of magnets ends up in lack of money ("Please donate us a lot of money so you can save the world from pollution - and make us very rich"), or the project was destroied by a little boy and it cannot be rebuilt - strange how parts and ideas dissappears with the destruction of a "working" model.
Well, that said. Never mind my opinion, but the only thing OU here is the HOPE.
Br.
Vidar
In my opinion, the design of a magnet motor determines whether work can be done or not. If a motor uses it's strength to "plow" through opposing magnetic fields, it will take most all of the torque out of the motor and the end result is that it can do no work, even if it can spin (the null output that physics plainly shows). I have measured torque output from my versions of power assisted motors. They run with magnets in the rotor and stator and use a speaker that is power assisted. A considerable amount of the output torque comes directly from magnets.
Perendev's motor doesn't work, of course. It seems readily apparent that his device makes use of these fields like mechanical springs. The fields compress and expand producing a net drag.
However, his device, like that of a fair number of other PM motor researchers, seems to be pointing the way toward a breakthrough roughly analogous to Griggs' hydrosonic pump.
Of course the more exciting breakthroughs are taking place on the nano scale:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGGC-1g4S3Y
TS
Quote from: Liberty on October 28, 2008, 07:33:11 AM
In my opinion, the design of a magnet motor determines whether work can be done or not. If a motor uses it's strength to "plow" through opposing magnetic fields, it will take most all of the torque out of the motor and the end result is that it can do no work, even if it can spin (the null output that physics plainly shows). I have measured torque output from my versions of power assisted motors. They run with magnets in the rotor and stator and use a speaker that is power assisted. A considerable amount of the output torque comes directly from magnets.
You don't get out more energy than you put in. As you say, you assist the magnets with a speaker driver, then ofcourse more magnets will increase the efficiency. A loudspeaker for home use have a typical efficiency of 1 - 5%, at most 30 - 40% of extremely high sensitivity speakers for PA use.
Anyway, magnets cannot provide energy, but they can provide greater kick and pull if assisted with electromagnets - like an electric motor utilize the magnets. If you quit the powersource, your engine will stop, so then where did the extra energy from the magnets go?
Many opinions regarding magnets. Regardless of that, they cannot do work without external energy manipulation - energy we all have to pay for.
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on October 29, 2008, 06:24:01 PM
You don't get out more energy than you put in. As you say, you assist the magnets with a speaker driver, then ofcourse more magnets will increase the efficiency. A loudspeaker for home use have a typical efficiency of 1 - 5%, at most 30 - 40% of extremely high sensitivity speakers for PA use.
Anyway, magnets cannot provide energy, but they can provide greater kick and pull if assisted with electromagnets - like an electric motor utilize the magnets. If you quit the powersource, your engine will stop, so then where did the extra energy from the magnets go?
Many opinions regarding magnets. Regardless of that, they cannot do work without external energy manipulation - energy we all have to pay for.
Br.
Vidar
I was curious at what electrical efficiency a 12" speaker would run at.
Thank you for that information.
As far as the motor not running when power is turned off, that is correct. The motor in the video will come to a stop and is designed to do so. The motor is designed to run with power input assist.
However, the next design is designed to use the strength of magnets to replace the power input to run the motor.
You might find this interesting: The dual rotor motor (using two 12" speakers) shown in the video was measured close to 70% electrical efficiency using the prony brake method on the output of the motor.
Thanks for your reply.
Quote from: Liberty on October 29, 2008, 08:20:51 PM
I was curious at what electrical efficiency a 12" speaker would run at.
Thank you for that information.
As far as the motor not running when power is turned off, that is correct. The motor in the video will come to a stop and is designed to do so. The motor is designed to run with power input assist.
However, the next design is designed to use the strength of magnets to replace the power input to run the motor.
You might find this interesting: The dual rotor motor (using two 12" speakers) shown in the video was measured close to 70% electrical efficiency using the prony brake method on the output of the motor.
Thanks for your reply.
Do you have a link to your video? I have seen your video somewhere, but I cannot find it.
Regarding the loudspeaker efficiency it is ofcourse the acoustic efficiency I was talking about - sorry for the mistake. 112 dB/1m at 1 watt input is 100% efficiency. 109dB/1m at 1 watt in is 50%, 106db - 25%, 103dB - 12,5%, 100dB - 6,25%, 97dB - 3,125%, etc...
The mechanical efficiency is in practice greater than the acoustic efficiency. However, the acoustic output can in theory be greater than 100% as dB (desiBel is a
relative term) is the reference and has no final 0-point, but the mechanical work cannot exceed 100%.
Br.
Vdar
The very title of this thread is an oxymoron.
Perhaps Mike Brady was once a honest man seeking the good of mankind at some point of his life, but surely his frustration upon hiting the wall of "impossible" turned him into a sleak free energy scammer.
I do believe a PMM is possible, and Mike had one piece of the puzzle right, the problem is that the PMM was never meant to be built in a backyard, the underlying phenomena is darn tricky, but is there, and we will see it why. But not just yet.
The picture of the Perendev unit from Perendev-Power (Mike Brady's site):
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.perendev-power.com%2Fgrafiken%2Femot100k.jpg&hash=1e74a417aed5a9750dfcebad3c3f88bf83ba64f7)
The picture of the real diesel genset (SDMO model TM11UCM) that he apparently ripped off and PhotoShopped to make the above picture:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.allworlddieselgen.com%2Fimages%2FM126.jpg&hash=e6e8299b9b5707dbae50bd7925c46cf177320986)
I guess there are several possible explanations for this "coincidence". The one I prefer is that there are no authentic Perendev gensets available to be photographed. I wonder why not?
Quote from: Low-Q on October 30, 2008, 09:26:24 AM
Do you have a link to your video? I have seen your video somewhere, but I cannot find it.
Regarding the loudspeaker efficiency it is ofcourse the acoustic efficiency I was talking about - sorry for the mistake. 112 dB/1m at 1 watt input is 100% efficiency. 109dB/1m at 1 watt in is 50%, 106db - 25%, 103dB - 12,5%, 100dB - 6,25%, 97dB - 3,125%, etc...
The mechanical efficiency is in practice greater than the acoustic efficiency. However, the acoustic output can in theory be greater than 100% as dB (desiBel is a relative term) is the reference and has no final 0-point, but the mechanical work cannot exceed 100%.
Br.
Vdar
Sure, the movies can be seen from my web site (youtube based) http://www.dynamaticmotors.com or click the little 'world' under the Tesla picture on this site. I can't remember what the db rating is, might be 89 or 102? It's a 12" Sony speaker that was used for the actuator.
Quote from: Liberty on October 30, 2008, 02:00:18 PM
Sure, the movies can be seen from my web site (youtube based) http://www.dynamaticmotors.com.
hi, what's about the third video. it says not anymore available?
Quote from: mike-ao on November 01, 2008, 12:00:35 PM
hi, what's about the third video. it says not anymore available?
Yes, that video I took down because it is a similar style motor that is older and ran slower on about 1.44 watts. It turned about 300-400 rpm. It was a single rotor version. It had no electronic circuits except a relay which was not needed.
You need magnet shield to make it work at the best! For magnet shielding you can use MuMetal (but not usual MuMetal)
There are only some companies who make these next-gen MuMetals
you can bay it here: http://www.lessemf.com/mag-shld.html#274 - > Read before this: http://www.lessemf.com/faq-shie.html
Remember it is not 100% Magnet shielding, but gives very great results :)
Why is the conservation of energy such a holy grail? And, why is so much of the comment in a free energy forum designed to maintain the status quo and dependence on fossil fuels? Howard Johnson patented a magnet motor in the 1980's that worked. Despite claims to being based on magnetic repulsion, the Parendev likely uses north and south pole similarly on the sides of the the upper stator magnets, not the ends of the magnets. It uses a combination of attraction and repulsion. Attraction as the magnets approach the north pole on the end of the lower magnet then repulsion as the magnet recedes from the the north pole.
Shielding under the upper magnet to reduce cogging, and around the sides of the lower to concentrate the magnetic field. The reason for 3 rotors is to offset each by the width of one magnet to create a series where there is always one magnet attracting the stator, one magnet repelling the stator while the third is cogging. While I have not completed a prototype, I made a simple rail using this magnet configuration, and it works as advertised. The world is not flat. I think of magnet motors as being like a magnetic windmill.
We don't understand magnets, but they produce energy and do work. If you don't think so get a strong magnet and hang a 20 pound piece of metal from it for a month. If you don't think it did any work, you hold up the twenty pounds for the next month and tell me it wasn't any work. Horsepucky. There is overunity. For example, I made a magnetic disk heater. It appears to produce roughly 3.5 times more heat than can be accounted for by electricity input. And yes, I believe that it could be configured to produce enough steam to power a turbine to run itself. I have not done that yet, however. But, give me time, I've just been messing around with this stuff for a few months. In my opinion, magnetic energy can be harnessed to produce power. Rather than blow smoke and theories get off your duff and experiment a little you might learn something. Magnets are cheap.
As for power, my guess is that a Perendev like device would be similar to an electric motor and have quite a lot of torque. See the simple diagram below, then make one, they are very simple. There, now send me $550 million. That's reportedly what Mike Brady wanted for his "secret". Ooops, secret's out, consider this an open source document to verify my discovery. You have my permission to make as many as you want. Consider this an open source patent to protect the technology from suppression.
N/S
N/S
N/S
N/S
-----
NN<
NN<
SS<
SS<
Everyone saying this technology doesn't works are oil company lackies or idiots. Just because some "expert" says something doesn't make it so. Think and observe for yourself, that's what your head is for. Try it before you're so certain it's wrong. If I seem a bit huffy it's because I'm just tired of hearing "It won't work" from people who haven't even attempted anything but spreading discouragement.
try
http://www.neo.im/mediadetails.php?key=f6374bf2abb0e42e8a0c&title=Magnetic+Energy+-+Free+Energy
this is the truth.
Quote from: nightwynd on May 07, 2006, 09:32:27 AM
Has anyone here figured out how Perendev's PMM (supposedly) works?
Yes. Like all the perpetual motion scam artists before him, Brady finds one gullible investor after another, always just a few months away from delivering anything. Since there is almost a limitless supply of suckers, there is a perpetual motion of cash into his bank account from his victims. According to PES Brady fleeced four million Euro's from suckers in Switzerland.
Here's a good overview of the Perendev pitch for investors from nearly five years ago.
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Perendev/March2004_Solicitation/index.html
Even Sterling Allan doesn't believe in Perendev anymore, and he worked with him for years and apparently invested money. So you know it's got to be a fraud, since Sterling appears to believes anything.
Some choice quotes from http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Perendev/MagneticMotor/Sterling_First-Hand/
Quote
I traveled to Johannesburg in Dec. 2002 to meet with Brady in his home for five days, and see his magnet motor, which at the time had just come from the machinist and had not been assembled to work yet.
.........
On Feb 17, 2004, Brady said he was coming to the U.S. to demo his 20 kW unit, and that he wanted me to pull together an auction for him to sell the technology outright. "Minimum bid: $500,000,000 USD in reserve."
I responded that I thought the amount was far too high, and frankly told him I thought he was getting greedy. I tried to talk him out of this, but he would not be swayed.
At that point, I and the tentative company I had assembled decided that we no longer wished to pursue a manufacturing/marketing license arrangement of any kind with Brady. Not only was his greed an issue, but integrity as well, as his promises to do this or that hardly ever materialized. Though he promised dozens of times to send us the patent information for his device, he never in 2 years delivered on that promise. Promises of sending a video, given dozens of time, materialized only once. I've never seen any patent documentation to this day, though he has made claims to such from the beginning of our relationship two years ago. He claims international patent protection through the PTC. A patent search comes up null.
....
In the Fall of 2004, having received a healthy infusion of funds, Mike was forging ahead, claiming to be ready shortly to publicly display his motor on German Television. We were able to burry the hatchet of our past schism that resulted from my publishing the report on this present page, and re-established a positive rapport as well as a tentative business relationship, in which I was once again spearheading the gathering of a team to manufacture and market his magnet motor in North America.
As before, one delay compounded upon another, and the same pattern from the past was repeated. No patent information, no skeptic-proof video, no working device for us to come see (though there was a brief window around November when he said that there was one), ever the story that he has just one more little change to make on the device, or waiting for some new component to arrive. That hardly constitutes manufacture readiness.
Finally, early in 2005, when he told me about the "zero-point spark plug" and other new devices, I leveled frankly with him and told him he had a serious credibility problem. How was he to expect people to take him serious on new claims when he has not yet delivered on the past claims?
I have not heard from him since that time, as of April 23, 2005.
Give it up.....
Crawl back home.
you had a good run..
times up.
I know this must be a scam or impossible. No fossil fuels are being used. The law of conservation of energy is being flagrantly violated. Excused me for being so obtuse as to question conventional "wisdom?". Undoubtedly you consumate skeptics are genius personified. But I perceive this is worth investigating. I'm such a sucker falling for these scam artists. Watch the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3940623695814013717
You're kidding, right?
How many times does the SMOT have to be invented?
Does the maker of this video really believe he is onto something new? That he has come up with a new and unique configuration of SMOT magnets?
Yep, all he (or anyone) has to do, to make a perpetual motion free energy machine, is to get a damn SMOT to close the loop. That's all. It's so simple.
And impossible, but we won't let a little thing like that stop us from buying a whole lot more magnets, will we.
I believe a better use of magnets would be to make a frictionless bearing.
A flywheel mounted into such a bearing could keep spinning for a very long time.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 27, 2008, 11:26:32 PM
You're kidding, right?
Yep, all he (or anyone) has to do, to make a perpetual motion free energy machine, is to get a damn SMOT to close the loop. That's all. It's so simple.
And impossible, but we won't let a little thing like that stop us from buying a whole lot more magnets, will we.
OK explain it to me hero. Why is it impossible? I'm so dense I just can't get it. I just blew up hydrogen in physics I should have paid more attention. Could you finish my lessons for me. Enlighten me.
Quote from: AbbaRue on December 28, 2008, 12:03:23 AM
I believe a better use of magnets would be to make a frictionless bearing.
A flywheel mounted into such a bearing could keep spinning for a very long time.
Frictionless bearings has nothing to do with OU. If you manage to make an OU device, frictionless bearings are not essential to make that device to work. And what is the point with a spinning flywheel if it cannot run forever, or cannot accelerate, WITH load such as friction, a generator etc.?
br.
Vidar
Quote from: jimhitt on December 28, 2008, 01:38:37 AM
OK explain it to me hero. Why is it impossible? I'm so dense I just can't get it. I just blew up hydrogen in physics I should have paid more attention. Could you finish my lessons for me. Enlighten me.
Because magnetism is conservative. Energy is temporary. A given enery is just a temporary phenomenon - lasting for as long as there is a given potential difference equalizing over a given time.
Magnets can do work, but only if there is added a given potential difference over a given time in advance. From somewhere that energy must be taken. Electricity is a way to force magnets to do work.
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on December 28, 2008, 06:04:15 AM
Because magnetism is conservative. Energy is temporary. A given enery is just a temporary phenomenon - lasting for as long as there is a given potential difference equalizing over a given time.
Magnets can do work, but only if there is added a given potential difference over a given time in advance. From somewhere that energy must be taken. Electricity is a way to force magnets to do work.
Ok so what about magnetic heaters made by Mueller, Adams, and Reed? Reed's patent states that for roughly 70000 btu's input ie. 20.5 kilowatts he obtained 270,000 btu's heat output. I made one and am making a second and they appear to produce 3 - 4 times more heat than possible by the necessary electrical input.
So suspend conventional wisdom for a bit. I also made a straight line Perendev type device using stator magents that were magnetized with poles on the sides instead of the ends. It worked. Everyone keeps trying to make a Perendev magnet motor based on repulsion and they run down. The Howard Johnson motor was based on attraction and repulsion. I'm not sure if he ever created a working model, but he did create straight line models. It was granted a patent. If the Perendev is also based upon attraction and repulsion, it becomes much more intuitively obvious why it would work and not run down
Look at the links under more info on this youtube video. It may be BS but if you close your mind you are worse than us gullible fools. http://pesn.com/2006/02/10/9600233_Calloway_Magnet_Motor_Open_Source/perendev_calloway_variant_labeled_NScorrected_full.gif
If you watch the first animation with the idea of the stator magnets having poles on the sides instead of the ends, it should get clearer for you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txYnzn1tGnA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txYnzn1tGnA)
Quote from: Low-Q on December 28, 2008, 06:04:15 AM
Because magnetism is conservative. Energy is temporary. A given enery is just a temporary phenomenon - lasting for as long as there is a given potential difference equalizing over a given time.
Magnets can do work, but only if there is added a given potential difference over a given time in advance. From somewhere that energy must be taken. Electricity is a way to force magnets to do work.
Br.
Vidar
"lasting for as long as there is a given potential difference equalizing over a given time."
Then one needs to make sure that there is always a potential difference in advance in their design of a motor. External electrical power input is an easy way that can help do this as we are all familiar with, or previous work which is accomplished from magnets can perform this function when used in a properly designed motor.
@jimhit: I don't want to start up another SMOT thread, but in case you didn't know, the device has been studied since the 16th century, at least, in many many variations, including ones that are just like the one you showed in the video. There have been several nearly-perpetual SMOT threads on this forum alone. If you want to know why they are impossible, there is a LOT of material you can read. If you want to know why people think they are possible, all you will find is theory, diagrams, and non-functional models with lots and lots of magnets.
You also say:
"I also made a straight line Perendev type device using stator magents that were magnetized with poles on the sides instead of the ends. It worked. "
It worked? Do you mean that it spun, or looped, on its own, without additional outside help? If that is true you stand to win a LOT of money. Why don't you show a video of your WORKING Perendev-type design, because NOBODY else has been able to do that.
You also say:
"Ok so what about magnetic heaters made by Mueller, Adams, and Reed? Reed's patent states that for roughly 70000 btu's input ie. 20.5 kilowatts he obtained 270,000 btu's heat output. I made one and am making a second and they appear to produce 3 - 4 times more heat than possible by the necessary electrical input. "
The key word here is "appear". Do you know much about calorimetry? Do you know how to measure power in pulsed systems? How are you calculating your input and output power? Don't you realize that if you had a system that put out 4 times as much heat than the electrical input would allow, that you could capture the excess heat and turn it back into electricity, using a simple Stirling motor/generator combo, and you would have "Free Energy"? Why haven't you (or anyone else working with these heaters) done that? I'll tell you why, for nothing: it is because your energy balance calculations and/or your measurements, are in error, and there's no excess energy there to be had.
Hero,
Have you made a magnetic heater since you are so concerned with my understanding of calorimetry? I get a gallon of 140 degree water in 2.5 minutes using 1800 watts input with a single phase motor starting with 58 degree tap water. A three phase motor which I will use on the next model will increase the result. OK, I'll do the math for you as I'm not sure of your skill in this science.
1800 watts should give 6100 btu's according to your theories. Since a btu is 1 pint increased 1 degree Fareinheit this equates to over 15000 btu's per hour. Look, I'm not a scientist, I'm just taking the most simple ideas and testing them. Any bozo can replicate this if they can overcome their preconceptions. Rather than blow smoke make your own magnetic disk heater. It's simple enough. You can use your own calorimetry and prove me wrong. And, yes I would expect that using a heat engine or a disk turbine that the device could be configured to run itself. Hell, you can be the first. It'll make you famous.
Ok, you're so sure that the Perendev motor is such a scam now you can test it. As I said earlier I have not built a prototype. I did build a straight line flat device. But if you take north south end pole magnets on the bottom board at a roughly a thirty three degree angle and place a second board above them with side pole magnets at an angle equal to one magnet width, it will propel itself for as long as you extend the lower magnets.
I used 1/2 inch by one inch long neodymium magnets. Three magnets wide in rows roughly one inch apart. The magnet ends' verticle width at a 33 degree angle are roughly .42 inches wide when viewed straight down from above So I spaced the magnets' holes adjacent edges .84 inches apart. I used a pencil for wheels. Took all of 25 minutes to make with a hand drill and a couple of pieces of weathered deck board.
'll try to create a diagram for you of what I did.
Face of board 1, magnets with north south poles on the ends signified by the pole that shows on top, north. The holes were drilled with a thirty three degree angle to the left as the diagram is presented. I've used nn to signify one magnet so that the side poles could be presented comparably in the second diagram. The distance between magnet holes left to right (edge to edge - not center to center) is .84 inches (2 magnet widths):
.84 inches
V
nn nn nn nn nn
nn nn nn nn nn
nn nn nn nn nn
The second upper board was drilled as shown below using the same 33 degree angle to the left, and roughly 1 inch spacing between the rows, and .84 inch spacing between magnets in each row. However this board was drilled with each row offset one magnet width farther forward than the one next to it. What you are seeing is the top view of the layout. It does not show that the holes are drilled at a 33 degree angle to the left. I put magnet shielding under these magnets on the end of the magnet. To insure scientific integrity I secured it with duct tape. With side poled magnets the end is the side and can be shielded. The poles are on the sides not the ends.
.84 inches
v
ns ns
ns ns >>>Direction of travel top board>>>
ns ns
The board propels itself to the right completely off the lower board's magnets with no obvious pull back at the end of the track. But as I said, I used a pencil for a wheel and the device slid the forward end of the board on the lower board. The magnets cost around $30 so you should be able to afford the magnets to try this on your own without incurring an excessive run up of your credit balances.
I believe that this uses exactly the same principles as the Howard Johnson motor with a minor variation of magnet shape. I am accomplishing the same result with shielding. Howard Johnson reportedly created a working model, but it was rumored to have been stolen. I am sure you will say it was all just a scam. Perhaps this is a SMOT. I really don't know, but it is a unidirectional magnetic push, which you claim is impossible, not that I care much for your opinion at this point. But, to show that I bear you no animosity go ahead and replicate this and post your own video. I'm busy, and this lesson is concluded. Though I doubt you have appreciated it, perhaps others have.
"I did build a straight line flat device".
- Would you please show picture or schematic, the liner movement completely different from circular.
Thank you.
Quote from: Light on December 28, 2008, 03:44:45 PM
"I did build a straight line flat device".
- Would you please show picture or schematic, the linear movement completely different from circular.
I understand that this diagram leaves a bit to the imagination, but it's the best I can do with the time I can spend on it. I have enclosed the board diagrams with edges to perhaps make this easier to visualize. The bottom board side view shows only the first magnets. There are two more rows that would be on the other side if I could show perspective. The first two board diagrams are the bottom board of the device. I am repeating the descriptions from the prior post plus have added a bit more description.
The second (lower diagrams) are the top board of the device. The side view actually shows all the magnets as I used only three rows of two offset by one magnet width each row.
Face of board 1, magnets with north south poles on the ends signified by the pole that shows on top, north. The holes were drilled with a thirty three degree angle to the left as the diagram is presented. I've used nn to signify one magnet so that the side poles could be presented comparably in the lower diagrams. The distance between magnet holes left to right (edge to edge - not center to center) is .84 inches (2 magnet widths):
Top Face of Bottom Board - 1.5 feet long-not scaled Side view of bottom board - not to scale (15 holes 33 degree angle to left)
____________________________________ ___________________________________________
I nn nn nn nn nn I 8 " Wide I nn nn nn nn nn I 1 " thick
I nn nn nn nn nn I I nn nn nn nn nn I
I nn nn nn nn nn I I ss ss ss ss ss I represents 1 magnet
I____________________________________I I ss ss ss ss ss I
I___________________________________________I
Shows magnet end only^^ Shows sides of magnets^^^
The second "upper" board was drilled as shown below using the same 33 degree angle to the left, and roughly 1 inch spacing between the rows, and .84 inch spacing between magnets in each row. However this board was drilled with each row offset one magnet width farther forward than the one next to it. What you are seeing is the top view of the layout. The diagram on the right shows that the holes are drilled at a 33 degree angle to the left. I put magnet shielding under these magnets on the end of the magnet. To insure scientific integrity I secured it with duct tape. With side poled magnets the end is the side and can be shielded. The poles are on the sides not the ends.
Top of Top Board - shows top ends of magnets Side view of top board - not to scale (6 holes are 33 degree angle to left)
_______________ _____________________
I ns ns I 8 " wide I /ns/ns/ns/ns/ns/ns/ | 1 " thick
I ns ns I >>>Direction of travel top board>>> I /ns/ns/ns/ns/ns/ns/ | represents 1 magnet
I ns ns I I /ns/ns/ns/ns/ns/ns/ |
I_______________I I_/ns/ns/ns/ns/ns/ns/_____| < Shows sides of magnets
Top end of magnet Shielding >>>> =============
Not sure if this clarifies anything. I found this video very helpful in visualizing magnet spacing and seeing intuitively why it should work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txYnzn1tGnA&feature=channel_page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txYnzn1tGnA&feature=channel_page)
Final configuration:
____________
|____________| >>>top board>>>>> direction of travel>>>>
_____o______________<<<<round Pencil
|___________________| bottom board- Stator
Ya gotta love it.
Somebody claims to be able to make a SMOT run forever, and that they have an overunity water heater that they can, "I'm sure" hook up to itself and make it run itself.
But this somebody just can't be "arsed" to actually do it.
I guess they are just too busy drawing pretty pictures to actually close the loop in all their overunity devices. They would rather challenge ME--instead of just DOING IT.
PROVE ME WRONG, jimhitt. Show what you've actually got, not a bunch of numbers and drawings. Show that your device actually does make that much heat, that you can recover it using, heck, a steam engine if it's really that much OU. Win all those prizes.
PROVE ME WRONG.
Otherwise, we'll just have to conclude that there really isn't a working Perendev motor, nor is there a closed-loop SMOT, nor is there an overunity water heater.
(BTW--I never said a unidirectional magnetic pull was impossible. It's easy, I've done it myself many times. What I said was that it was impossible to close the loop and make a self-runner SMOT. If you are going to quote me, you should try to get it right.)
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 28, 2008, 06:47:25 PM
Ya gotta love it.
Somebody claims to be able to make a SMOT run forever, and that they have an overunity water heater that they can, "I'm sure" hook up to itself and make it run itself.
But this somebody just can't be "arsed" to actually do it.
I guess they are just too busy drawing pretty pictures to actually close the loop in all their overunity devices. They would rather challenge ME--instead of just DOING IT.
PROVE ME WRONG, jimhitt. Show what you've actually got, not a bunch of numbers and drawings. Show that your device actually does make that much heat, that you can recover it using, heck, a steam engine if it's really that much OU. Win all those prizes.
PROVE ME WRONG.
Otherwise, we'll just have to conclude that there really isn't a working Perendev motor, nor is there a closed-loop SMOT, nor is there an overunity water heater.
(BTW--I never said a unidirectional magnetic pull was impossible. It's easy, I've done it myself many times. What I said was that it was impossible to close the loop and make a self-runner SMOT. If you are going to quote me, you should try to get it right.)
That does sound oddly like a challenge from someone incensed that I would question their all knowing expertise and throwing accusation that I have challenged them rather than prove my point. Unlike you I don't know that closing the loop is impossible, so there is a chance I'll be able to. But, I'll not be proving anything to you Koala. You are obviously quite certain in your opinion, I would not like to be the cause of any upset to you and confuse you with any facts that ruffle your sensitivities.
Things take time; I am doing this for my own benefit. I would hate to have it be at your expense. I am still perfecting the heater to transfer the heat to a water to air heat exchanger. There is a great deal more to making something from scratch with only hearsay as guidance than proving anything to people. It's not about you. It's about sharing information that appears factual while it is being discovered so that others can attempt the same or similar efforts and hopefully benefit as well. Your certainty with no factual basis is enough for me to realize that I am not writing to you.
Others will no doubt find my meanderings of interest. Since I have started investigating actual reported energy devices that are claimed to work in free energy sites and attempting to replicate the simple ones there are always those skeptics who have created nothing who stand on the sidelines and heckle. For the record, regardless of actual results, MagTec Energy of North Dakota makes commercial diesel powered construction and offshore oil well magnetic heaters they claim are 95% efficient with motors that are at best 35 % efficient. Neat trick, huh. But don't let that sway you. Never mind that the patent office verifies claims in patents before granting them. Troy Reed and the patent office were unfortunate to not have had your expertise when the patent was granted otherwise they would have realized their calorimetric error.
And of course a minor measurement error is responsible for the undoubted error in my and their BTU calculations. And of course I should rush to verify my results to calm your sensibilities. I should prove my statement to the satisfaction of you and your ilk. People who despise observation as vehemently as you appear to should take up astrology rather than post to forums where others are genuinely interested in finding new ideas to benefit humanity. Suppression by self serving saints and sages has always impeded human progress. But no one is foolish enough to buy your blather. Fearful perhaps, that's why everyone posts their discoveries under pseudonyms. Should I expect a visit soon from the thought police?
Skepticism and sarcasm are not effective encouragement, though I am sure you wish to appear well meaning. Undoubtedly your goal for this forum is to reach a consensus that challenges no conventionally accepted principle. We should always doubt and question the very goal of this forum to share information on working devices or principles that improve humanities lot. This could lead to an unfortunate power shift toward freedom instead of slavery. Self direction instead of listening to self serving fools whose only promise is that you'll not have to think, just serve. The power elite loves you hero.
Go back to sleep. The world is still flat; the sun revolves around the earth. No one will consider anything I've written here. My god you have hundreds of posts to my mere handful. You're the expert. No one will challenge you or doubt your sincerity. Your kindness in the face of my obvious inexperience has been overwhelming. Call the power elite and let them know they are still in charge. We are lemmings awaiting your permission to think for ourselves. You have cornered the market on doubt; no one will consider anything except carbon based fuels.
I do not know if the Perendev motor works, yet. But I believe that my observations are valuable to those folks who are honestly investigating it. Certainly they are more valuable than your inveterate skepticism. I've not heard anyone else suggest the magnet configuration that I shared in this forum. I'll not apologize for it nor take your criticism as anything other than what it is, an attempt to thwart honest investigation; much as your outrage at my impudence is designed to prevent others sharing information. I do know that the magnetic disk heater works as other researchers have said it did. I do not nor does anyone else care if you agree or not. As for my drawings and numbers I know of no other way that honest men communicate.
Lets see, if I am right the fact that this will run indefinately in one direction should be useful. Whether it can be looped is an open question. But work is defined as the ability to move a weight, over distance, in a certain amount of time. My device is doing work. I am doing work with magnets with this design. Something that has been claimed to be impossible. Let's see we could make a childrens toy, a train that moves on its own. Perhaps it would even go around a corner. If not that then a drag strip with little cars, no curves necessary. But the point is the configuration I have enumerated here will allow you to access work using magnets. Doesn't that torque you?
You remind me of a quote attributed to Menkin, " A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Fortunately, that is not a weakness that I share with you.
Regards,
Jim
All you have to do to shut me up, jimhitt, is to show a single overunity device that actually functions.
And you are wrong about the patent office having to verify claims.
You think I am suppressing your creativity? You think it is because of people like me, that there aren't any free energy devices out there? You think I am trying to "thwart honest investigation?"
You are wrong about that too.
You should be grateful to me, because I am trying to steer you away from frauds and time wasters, so that you can spend your creative juices on something that might have some chance of being worthwhile. SMOTs and SMOT-like devices fail on first principles; there is no need for complex and error-ridden analyses, nor clever and (not so) new magnet configurations. Do I have to do your homework for you in order to show you that your "new" configuration isn't actually new at all, but has already been tried before without success?
But you obviously don't have to listen to me. Just go buy some more magnets and stack them up, and when you get something that runs itself, I will be happy to apologise to you and eat my hat.
PROVE ME WRONG. You are the one making claims. Prove them. Don't let an Evil Skeptic like me thwart you. Prove me wrong.
Quote from: jimhitt on December 28, 2008, 08:49:48 PM
For the record, regardless of actual results, MagTec Energy of North Dakota makes commercial diesel powered construction and offshore oil well magnetic heaters they claim are 95% efficient with motors that are at best 35 % efficient. Neat trick, huh. But don't let that sway you.
Is this the device you are referring to?
from http://www.magtecenergy.com/product/electric
Patent Pending: This product is currently patent pending. A patent application is on file at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
This is not a current production model. The Electric version is customizable per specifications, 6 month production lead time is required.How does a 90% efficient magnetic electric heater indicate overunity? The sole patent application I can find for Magtec (CONTROLLED MAGNETIC HEAT GENERATION, CA #2532507, PCT/US2006/038370) doesn't indicate use of any electric motors.
Quote from: jimhitt on December 28, 2008, 08:49:48 PM
Never mind that the patent office verifies claims in patents before granting them.
False. from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0600_608_03.htm
With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device.
Wizard,
If I suspected you were at all interested I'd respond. But you and TinselToes are comrades in skepticism and attack to prevent honest inquiry. As I said earlier; the world is flat. You are geniuses Any fool except you knows that electric motors are beyond 35 percent efficient. MagTec has made only one electric prototype and to my knowledge has not released specifications to it. Their devices are diesel and gas powered. While I'd expect most folks to know this, for your sake, I'll state the obvious. Diesel and gas powered reciprocating engines are 20 to 30 percent efficient, but their claimed heater efficiencies exceed 90%. Their pending patent's working principal is identical to Reed's. As for efficiencies, we all know that there is no overunity just measurement errors. That's why we are all here to be assured we are fools and you are geniuses. All hail great Wizard. Now go back to sleep. God this site is rabidly anti-free energy inquiry. Ok, Koala and Wizard proove you aren't articulate incompetents. Without proof we will all just continue to think you are oil company plants, closed minded power elite schills intent on maintaining the old order not investigation.
Ok everyone repeat silently to youselves the mantra ... there is no overunity only measurement errors....any claim of success must be met with skepticism and derision to prevent anyone else attempting it. We'll tie their shoe laces with our criticism and castigate their inquiry. Throw around tired old theories as gospel, thrust and parry. We'll attack and drive them back to their reptilian brain, they'll be religated to those programmed robotic responses that originate in the amigdula. We the all knowing all seeing compassionate elite are the experts here, no one must think for themselves, follow the yellow brick road, the great powerful Wizard of Mars will grant us courage, a heart, but no brain. Oh look I think I see the flying monkeys!
"The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they’re wrong. This is bad. Worse, if they got away with it when they were young (say, because they were smarter than their parents, their friends, and their parent’s friends) they’ve probably built an ego around being right, and will therefore defend their perfect record of invented righteousness to the death. Smart people often fall into the trap of preferring to be right even if it’s based in delusion, or results in them, or their loved ones, becoming miserable. (Somewhere in your town there is a row of graves at the cemetery, called smartypants lane, filled with people who were buried at poorly attended funerals, whose headstones say “Well, at least I was right.â€)
Until they come face to face with someone who is tenacious enough to dissect their logic, and resilient enough to endure the thinly veiled intellectual abuse they dish out during debate (e.g. “You don’t really think that do you?†or “Well if you knew the <insert obscure reference here> rule/law/corollary you wouldn’t say such thingsâ€), they’re never forced to question their ability to defend bad ideas. Opportunities for this are rare: a new boss, a new co-worker, a new spouse. But if their obsessiveness about being right is strong enough, they’ll reject those people out of hand before they question their own biases and self-manipulations. It can be easier for smart people who have a habit of defending bad ideas to change jobs, spouses, or cities rather than honestly examine what is at the core of their psyche (and often, their misery)." Scott Berkun
How did this thread go from the Perendev motor to a diesel powered heater?
But you are right there in no Overunity.. There is plenty of free energy, but no overunity.
Simple proof .. Take a gallon bucket and put a gallon of water in it, I don't care how
hard you try, you can only pour a gallon out .
I'm a firm believer that someone will discover more efficient uses of energy, maybe even
a new source of energy, but unity is the best that will be achieved.
Quote from: Digjam on December 29, 2008, 05:41:21 AM
How did this thread go from the Perendev motor to a diesel powered heater?
(snip)
It got hijacked by a newbie who thinks that patent applications and crackpot claims trump thermodynamics and proper experimentation.
Quote from: Digjam on December 29, 2008, 05:41:21 AM
unity is the best that will be achieved.
The earth has spun on it's axis for millions of years with no obvious source of external power. We are surrounded by energy we do not know how to tap. A rock has immeasurable internal movement to sustain it's existence, yet no one is supplying a source of external power as defined by our resident thought police. Hell a wind generator is overunity - creates more energy that is supplied to operate it. Closed minded certainty merely insures that new ideas die on the vine. Well there is overunity we have just not yet believed it when it stared us in the face. Supposedly when Columbus reached the new world, the ships were so far out of conventional experience for the natives that they literally could not see them. Our "experts" are little better than primitive savages. They can't see things outside the limited realm of their experience. But why accept their blindness as the ideal. We've all got 90% of our brain going to waste. What the hey, lets kick in an extra 5% and change the world for the better. Man is still very slightly developed in his potential evolution. We are barbarians and superstitious fools with only slight understanding of the universe around us. Certainty is a luxury for fools. I actually know little if anything. It is a great asset.
I haven't seen it discussed so I'll drop my two cents worth on the topic of this thread.
My opinions ONLY>>>>>>
Most replication attempts do not consider one detail....
The magnets were housed in an aluminum casing. I promote the use of aluminum for a few reasons.
Al is paramagnetic, unlike copper. Most think Al and Cu are the same. Wrong.
Al has a unique ability to act in a focusing and magnetic conduction manor, but only when it is moving in relationship to the mag flux (notice I did not say 'field'). Argue to yourself. There is a difference.
You can purchase magnets in such a casing. The manufacturers provide them this way for a reason.
Another thought I've never been able to confirm... The rotor construction MUST be of electrically non-conductive material. This material should also contain a small amount of aluminum flake or ball material. This is common in many industrial plastics but usually only added as pigment.
And...
If you want rotation you must have three vectors of force/potential. The magnets are not doing the work. Magnets alone cannot produce energy and then power.
Magnets are not the source of the magnetic force. They only focus the ambient force. This is why closing a loop of magnets is worthless until you add a second and third vector.
<<<<<<<<< My Opinions
Quote from: BEP on December 29, 2008, 11:51:12 AM
The magnets were housed in an aluminum casing. I promote the use of aluminum for a few reasons.
Al is paramagnetic, unlike copper. Most think Al and Cu are the same. Wrong.
I used .010 Magnet Shield for shielding. http://www.lessemf.com/mag-shld.html (http://www.lessemf.com/mag-shld.html) I would like to find a non magnetic type shield as this does attract opposite magnets and creates drag. Aluminum might be worth a try. The bottom magnets I didn't shield at all though for a circular model I would guess it will be neccessary to focus the field. In a circular device, the south poles are quite close together. Magnets on the stator are harder to shield as one needs round shields. I have not been able to find anything for this other than just steel pipe which may help direct the field somewhat. None of the magnetic shielding companies I've investigated have a standard round pipe shape in shielding material. The upper shielding is easy as it is flat. I've considered having round shield fabricated from mu-metal, but imagine this would be quite pricey as it would then need to be re-annealed. The later perendev pictures appear to use a round plastic like shield on the lower magnets, but I do not know what material this is.
I avoid the term 'shield' with magnetics. There is no such thing. Mag flux can be redirected, channeled, conducted. It cannot be stopped, unless you wish to try breaking the connection and using the reconnection (hopelessly advanced theory but recent scientific efforts are leaning this way).
Using any ferrous material for shielding will only redirect. The bogus but useful visualization of field lines will show you they stay connected no matter what you do.
Metals, like aluminum, act as nonferrous material when not in a moving flux and then act as ferrous when in a moving flux. I think this is as close as we can be to switching a magnet off and on.
The casing on the magnets I mentioned is generally very thick and cover all but one surface. I use a machine that incorporates such magnets. The magnets are cylindrical 2" in diameter and 1" long. All surfaces but one end is covered in about 1" solid Al. These are used to separate the lighter fast moving metal chips and still allow the heavier, slow moving chips to settle.
You are right. At best you can bend the field mostly on the sides of the magnet. It is much more difficult to do at the poles. What do you mean by breaking the connection? Is there a way to cut, counter or interupt the field electrically or otherwise?
Here is an introduction - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125230056.htm
If you figure a way to do it on a bench let us know :)
But then we'll probably hear the bang!
q: How does Perendev's motor work?
a: Nowise.
:-\
Quote from: khabe on December 30, 2008, 05:50:05 AM
q: How does Perendev's motor work?
a: Nowise.
:-\
Ah!
khabe, You have built a Perendev motor! Wonderful!
Please supply details on how yours failed so we can avoid those problems.
Quote from: BEP on December 30, 2008, 08:53:32 AM
Ah!
khabe, You have built a Perendev motor! Wonderful!
Please supply details on how yours failed so we can avoid those problems.
You like to see my not-working Perendev style motors?
::)
Im 101% sure that all the world want to see an WORKING one,
Working one meanÅ› what really works ... and continiusly will work in the presence of independent auditors
Do you have?
Yes? - OK - then please YOU show it,
Otherwise this talking about is pointless.
Regards,
khabe
Quote from: BEP on December 30, 2008, 08:53:32 AM
Ah!
khabe, You have built a Perendev motor! Wonderful!
Please supply details on how yours failed so we can avoid those problems.
"Perendev motor" is a deception, a beginner's mirage, an illusion...
I will not provide the proof for my claim. :P
But You're very welcomed (if you feel like it) to provide a proof that it is really working as claimed....
Let's hope for the best. Good luck!
Quote from: jimhitt on December 29, 2008, 04:59:45 AM
Any fool except you knows that electric motors are beyond 35 percent efficient. MagTec has made only one electric prototype and to my knowledge has not released specifications to it. Their devices are diesel and gas powered. While I'd expect most folks to know this, for your sake, I'll state the obvious. Diesel and gas powered reciprocating engines are 20 to 30 percent efficient, but their claimed heater efficiencies exceed 90%. Their pending patent's working principal is identical to Reed's.
You were the one claiming MagTec had a shipping patented device, and it turns out they have one prototype with a patent pending. Will you retract your claim as incorrect?
To point out yet another misstatement by you, they have released the specifications on their website, under the link 'Technical specs' -> http://www.magtecenergy.com/files/pdf/product_tundra1500.pdf
What is it about this field of overunity research that causes people to make claims up? Do you think others aren't going to call you on it?
Quote from: wizardofmars on December 30, 2008, 01:54:25 PM
You were the one claiming MagTec had a shipping patented device, and it turns out they have one prototype with a patent pending. Will you retract your claim as incorrect?
To point out yet another misstatement by you, they have released the specifications on their website, under the link 'Technical specs' -> http://www.magtecenergy.com/files/pdf/product_tundra1500.pdf
What is it about this field of overunity research that causes people to make claims up? Do you think others aren't going to call you on it?
God, Wizard you are such a stickler for detail. I said that they made gas and diesel powered products for which they claim over 90 percent efficiency, and that gas and diesel engine average between 25% and 30 percent efficient, and that was an interesting trick. Their devices are scaled for commercial use and start at 500,000 btu's up to 1,500,000 btu's. But you've have misquoted me. I said that they had not released specifications on their electrical prototype
to my knowledge. I also said their patent was pending on those devices. Undoubtedly the field of over unity caused you to make unsupportable claims such as these. I said that I had made a magnet heater and that my results point to the accuracy of prior claims made by other researchers. I wish I were younger. I would so love to have a flying monkey for a pet.
You're likely one of the frequent contributors to ufo and antigravity sites. I agree with you that these may be possible Would they be over unity? You can not find something new by first asserting that it does not exist. I am not claiming that these devices produce more power than is used to operate them any more than a wind generator does. Wind generators receive power from the wind. Magnet heaters receive energy from magnets. I am asserting that we are idiots when we think we have discovered all the ways of doing things. I am asserting that magnets can do work. I am asserting that we do not understand how things work. And, that we are at best scratching the surface of energy alternatives. As you may know magnets like gravity are not well understood. So your laws, corollaries, and rules are merely witch doctor's superstitions.
This thread however is not about magnet heaters. Stick to the topic Wizard. It's about the Perendev Motor and how it works. Most everyone here asserted on the basis of opinion that it could not work. I asserted on the basis of experimentation that it could and provided an alternate magnet configuration to the conventional opinion of how it is configured. I have made a straight line rail and it does work. I haven't tried it in a motor so I don't know. But, it's at least based on empirical evidence and work not blather like you are spewing.
Your certainty based upon dead expert’s opinion has blinded you. You can not prevent people from thinking even if you ask millions of critical questions, criticize their opinions, assert premises based upon no empirical observation only on conjecture and theory, accuse them of inaccuracies, and heap other forms of intellectual abuse upon them.. Everyone here sees your true colors. Go crawl into a hole and realize that your days of unearned reward at others expense based upon spreading illusion are coming to an end. Free energy exists, and soon I'm sure even your pal's the power elite won't be able to stop it.
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
Quote from: spinner on December 30, 2008, 10:55:43 AM
"Perendev motor" is a deception, a beginner's mirage, an illusion...
I will not provide the proof for my claim. :P
But You're very welcomed (if you feel like it) to provide a proof that it is really working as claimed....
Let's hope for the best. Good luck!
I appreciate the wish for good luck but it is misplaced. There are certain truths about magnet only motors. I'll not list them all as I have many times before.
There is one fact that has no solution, yet.
IF you get one that seems to work - acceleration and or running for a length of time beyond expected...
They always stop. Sometimes the magnets loose their magnetization. Sometimes not but the motor either never works again or it only works sometimes.
The majority of the time they are simply fakes.
"a deception, a beginner's mirage, an illusion" ? For most, yes. They are a great learning experience but pointless only for those burdened with failure, poor attitudes and no imagination.
The truth about magnetism (and all related) is surely not understood completely.
I will not provide the proof for my claim either. :P
We should all let the learning experience be lessons learned about the physics not childish pissing matches.
Quote from: jimhitt on December 30, 2008, 04:13:38 PM
God, Wizard you are such a stickler for detail. .... I also said their patent was pending on those devices.
It's attention to detail that separates the people dreaming of free energy to those that actually achieve something.
Your original post:
Quote
For the record, regardless of actual results, MagTec Energy of North Dakota makes commercial diesel powered construction and offshore oil well magnetic heaters they claim are 95% efficient with motors that are at best 35 % efficient. Neat trick, huh. But don't let that sway you. Never mind that the patent office verifies claims in patents before granting them. Troy Reed and the patent office were unfortunate to not have had your expertise when the patent was granted otherwise they would have realized their calorimetric error.
It doesn't matter how you spin it - there are three errors in that statement. MagTec are not commercially producing heaters with 95% efficiency - it's a single prototype as you admitted. MagTec don't have a patent granted - it's an application. And the patent office doesn't verify claims in patents in that manner.
Anyway, I won't keep picking on the heater issue. You claim you've solved free energy from magnet motors so I look forward to the breaking news and acclaim which will come your way when you demo it on live TV. Since nothing could be more important than solving the energy crisis, and you are so sure you have a solution, I'm sure it'll be any day now. ::)
http://www.magtecenergy.com/index.aspx (http://www.magtecenergy.com/index.aspx) This is Magtec's website, for anyone who is interested. I have no connection to them, but they produce gasoline and diesel powered portable magnetic heaters for the construction and offshore oil drilling industries that range from 500,000 to 1,500,000 btu's. They do not claim overunity for their devices which lease at prices starting @ $6500 per month. I am unfortunately ignorant of quoted purchase prices. They claim efficiencies of over 90%. Perhaps they have purchased Reed's patent as his patent is now listed as abandoned and his name is listed in their patent application.
Magtec does not produce an electrically powered model having only made one prototype for which they claim efficiencies of over 90 percent. Perhaps the following will clarify the potential efficiency of electrically powered devices, as Troy Reed's name is now listed on Magtec's patent application, perhaps his original observation is worth noting.
The following is a quote from Troy Reed's original patent:
[0169] An apparatus in accordance with the principles of the claimed invention may be configured so as to produce extremely high efficiencies, in terms of the amount of heat generated compared to the energy input required. The following description is provided as an exemplary case.
[0170] In an embodiment of the claimed invention similar to that illustrated in FIG. 1, the drive mechanism 70 comprises an electric motor, supplied with 95 amperes of current at 220 volts. As is well known, power may be calculated according to the relation:
P=I.times.V Equation 1:
[0171] wherein:
[0172] P is the power in watts;
[0173] I is the current in amperes; and
[0174] V is the electrical potential in volts.
[0175] In accordance with Equation 1, the power supplied to the electric motor is 20,900 watts.
[0176] In the exemplary embodiment, the fluid driver 80 comprises an electric fan, supplied with 8 amperes of power at 220 volts. According to Equation 1, the power supplied to the fan is thus 1,760 watts.
[0177] Thus, the total power input into the system is 22,660 watts. For the sake of convenience, the input power may be converted to BTU/hr. 1 watt is equivalent to approximately 3.415 BTU/hr. Thus, the total power input into the exemplary embodiment is equivalent to 77,179 BTU/hr.
[0178] Total power output in the exemplary embodiment may be conveniently determined from the change in thermal energy of fluid as it passes through the system. In the exemplary embodiment, air is used as a fluid. The heat output of the system may be determined according to the known relation:
Q=q.times..rho..times.C.sub.p.times.(T.sub.O-T.sub.I) Equation 2:
[0179] wherein:
[0180] Q is the total heat output
[0181] q is the flow rate of air through the system
[0182] .rho. is the density of air
[0183] C.sub.p is the heat capacity of air
[0184] T.sub.O is the outlet temperature of the air
[0185] T.sub.I is the inlet temperature of the air
[0186] In the exemplary embodiment, the air flowing through the device is heated by 80.degree. F. Thus, the difference between the outlet and inlet temperatures of the air (T.sub.O-T.sub.I) is 80.degree. F.
[0187] The flow rate of air through the system in the exemplary embodiment is measured to be 3200 ft.sup.3/min. This may also be expressed as 192,000 ft.sup.3/hr.
[0188] The remaining values are known to reasonable accuracy. The density of air .rho. at standard temperature and pressure is known to be approximately 0.075 lbs/ft.sup.3. The heat capacity of air C.sub.p is known to be 0.24 BTU/lb-.degree. F.
[0189] Thus, according to Equation 2, the heat output of the exemplary embodiment is 276,480 BTU/hr.
[0190] The efficiency of an apparatus is commonly expressed in terms of the output divided by the input. The efficiency of the exemplary embodiment in generating heat may thus be expressed as (276,480 BTU/hr)/(77,179 BTU/hr), which reduces to a value of approximately 3.58, or 358% efficiency.
[0191] It is noted that the preceding is exemplary only. An apparatus in accordance with the principles of the claimed invention is not limited to the particular devices, materials, or power inputs and outputs described in the preceding invention.
[0192] Furthermore, 358% efficiency is in particular exemplary only, and is not to be considered to be a maximum value, a minimum value, or even a preferred value. Apparatuses in accordance with the principles of the claimed invention may be constructed with a variety of operating efficiencies.
[0193] Thus, the total heat energy generated within the conductive member 40 exceeds the total energy applied to the apparatus 10. In the case described above, the ratio of heat generated to energy applied is 3.58 to one, i.e. an efficiency of 358%.
Of course as pointed out by previous posts, the patent office does not verify claims such as these. And undoubtedly carbon fueled engines powering such devices are osmotically embued with etherial capabilities. Measurement difficulties create an impossibility of accurate measurement calibration leading to such outlandish claims undoubtedly due to excessive enthusiasm, much like the Perendev claims. These are of course equally doubtful and highly uncertain having no support from conventional authorities dead or living. All magnetic motors violate the principle of conservation of energy and are thus not worth investigating. Working models undoubtedly are all hoaxes waiting merely to be debunked. Thank god and other mythical beings for the kindness and consideration shown by the senior members of this forum in gently guiding us toward more productive endeavor.
<<I have a friend of mine that he is currently likes to fabricate Perendev's magnetic motor.
(Extremely skilled machinist)
anyone interested in this please contact him.
Here is his website.http://atlantiansolutions.com/KelFab/magnetic_motor.htm (http://atlantiansolutions.com/KelFab/magnetic_motor.htm)
Mem.>>
@all
I did not want to say anything yet, but I am having a tremendous success!!!!!!
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6362.msg158838#msg158838
Jesus
Jim,
I think this is dealing with a 3 phase motor. Not single phase like your formula. Amps/(Volts x 1.73)=VA
This gives you volt amps you then need to know the power factor to find watts.
Magtec should take the power wires going to the motor and run it straight to an electric water heater. Then you could throw away the motor, the VFD, the magnet thing, the bearings, and be at 100% EFF.
The whole trailer would be much lighter and more reliable.
Quote from: jimhitt on January 09, 2009, 09:31:58 PM
http://www.magtecenergy.com/index.aspx (http://www.magtecenergy.com/index.aspx) This is Magtec's website, for anyone who is interested. I have no connection to them, but they produce gasoline and diesel powered portable magnetic heaters for the construction and offshore oil drilling industries that range from 500,000 to 1,500,000 btu's. They do not claim overunity for their devices which lease at prices starting @ $6500 per month. I am unfortunately ignorant of quoted purchase prices. They claim efficiencies of over 90%. Perhaps they have purchased Reed's patent as his patent is now listed as abandoned and his name is listed in their patent application.
Magtec does not produce an electrically powered model having only made one prototype for which they claim efficiencies of over 90 percent. Perhaps the following will clarify the potential efficiency of electrically powered devices, as Troy Reed's name is now listed on Magtec's patent application, perhaps his original observation is worth noting.
The following is a quote from Troy Reed's original patent:
[0169] An apparatus in accordance with the principles of the claimed invention may be configured so as to produce extremely high efficiencies, in terms of the amount of heat generated compared to the energy input required. The following description is provided as an exemplary case.
[0170] In an embodiment of the claimed invention similar to that illustrated in FIG. 1, the drive mechanism 70 comprises an electric motor, supplied with 95 amperes of current at 220 volts. As is well known, power may be calculated according to the relation:
P=I.times.V Equation 1:
[0171] wherein:
[0172] P is the power in watts;
[0173] I is the current in amperes; and
[0174] V is the electrical potential in volts.
[0175] In accordance with Equation 1, the power supplied to the electric motor is 20,900 watts.
[0176] In the exemplary embodiment, the fluid driver 80 comprises an electric fan, supplied with 8 amperes of power at 220 volts. According to Equation 1, the power supplied to the fan is thus 1,760 watts.
[0177] Thus, the total power input into the system is 22,660 watts. For the sake of convenience, the input power may be converted to BTU/hr. 1 watt is equivalent to approximately 3.415 BTU/hr. Thus, the total power input into the exemplary embodiment is equivalent to 77,179 BTU/hr.
[0178] Total power output in the exemplary embodiment may be conveniently determined from the change in thermal energy of fluid as it passes through the system. In the exemplary embodiment, air is used as a fluid. The heat output of the system may be determined according to the known relation:
Q=q.times..rho..times.C.sub.p.times.(T.sub.O-T.sub.I) Equation 2:
[0179] wherein:
[0180] Q is the total heat output
[0181] q is the flow rate of air through the system
[0182] .rho. is the density of air
[0183] C.sub.p is the heat capacity of air
[0184] T.sub.O is the outlet temperature of the air
[0185] T.sub.I is the inlet temperature of the air
[0186] In the exemplary embodiment, the air flowing through the device is heated by 80.degree. F. Thus, the difference between the outlet and inlet temperatures of the air (T.sub.O-T.sub.I) is 80.degree. F.
[0187] The flow rate of air through the system in the exemplary embodiment is measured to be 3200 ft.sup.3/min. This may also be expressed as 192,000 ft.sup.3/hr.
[0188] The remaining values are known to reasonable accuracy. The density of air .rho. at standard temperature and pressure is known to be approximately 0.075 lbs/ft.sup.3. The heat capacity of air C.sub.p is known to be 0.24 BTU/lb-.degree. F.
[0189] Thus, according to Equation 2, the heat output of the exemplary embodiment is 276,480 BTU/hr.
[0190] The efficiency of an apparatus is commonly expressed in terms of the output divided by the input. The efficiency of the exemplary embodiment in generating heat may thus be expressed as (276,480 BTU/hr)/(77,179 BTU/hr), which reduces to a value of approximately 3.58, or 358% efficiency.
[0191] It is noted that the preceding is exemplary only. An apparatus in accordance with the principles of the claimed invention is not limited to the particular devices, materials, or power inputs and outputs described in the preceding invention.
[0192] Furthermore, 358% efficiency is in particular exemplary only, and is not to be considered to be a maximum value, a minimum value, or even a preferred value. Apparatuses in accordance with the principles of the claimed invention may be constructed with a variety of operating efficiencies.
[0193] Thus, the total heat energy generated within the conductive member 40 exceeds the total energy applied to the apparatus 10. In the case described above, the ratio of heat generated to energy applied is 3.58 to one, i.e. an efficiency of 358%.
Of course as pointed out by previous posts, the patent office does not verify claims such as these. And undoubtedly carbon fueled engines powering such devices are osmotically embued with etherial capabilities. Measurement difficulties create an impossibility of accurate measurement calibration leading to such outlandish claims undoubtedly due to excessive enthusiasm, much like the Perendev claims. These are of course equally doubtful and highly uncertain having no support from conventional authorities dead or living. All magnetic motors violate the principle of conservation of energy and are thus not worth investigating. Working models undoubtedly are all hoaxes waiting merely to be debunked. Thank god and other mythical beings for the kindness and consideration shown by the senior members of this forum in gently guiding us toward more productive endeavor.
Quote from: x743 on March 01, 2009, 11:03:52 AM
Jim,
I think this is dealing with a 3 phase motor. Not single phase like your formula. Amps/(Volts x 1.73)=VA
This gives you volt amps you then need to know the power factor to find watts.
Magtec should take the power wires going to the motor and run it straight to an electric water heater. Then you could throw away the motor, the VFD, the magnet thing, the bearings, and be at 100% EFF.
The whole trailer would be much lighter and more reliable.
Interesting that your only respose is to criticize the math based upon what you "think" the was used to power their heater. No one cares what you "think". We are only concerned with facts in this forum which we attack with gleeful abandon. As noted earlier, all overunity is a function of measurement errors. It is so wonderful that you weighed in with yours.